US-Iran peace agreement discussion, part 4

[RedTagAlan]

Thread 4 for those following and commenting on the above subject.

*the strait, not the canal.

Doesn’t look like China are going to play ball with these sanctions:

Beijing answered on Tuesday. China's cooperation with Iran is conducted within the framework of international law and should not be interfered with or disrupted, foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said, adding that China is monitoring developments closely and will take all necessary measures to safeguard its rights and interests.

Even Qatar is looking a bit iffy:

There is still a profound lack of details of these biggest sanctions yet.

It is problematic to the peace process that Iran don't trust the US and the US don't trust Iran. But as you say, they will have to trust a peace agreement at some point (& both sides have made some noises indicating they want to).

Trump will concede on a lot of smaller things I think if he achieves his main goal - Iran to show to US satisfaction that they really are giving up their ambitions of becoming a nuclear power (for an agreed number of decades at least).

So we agree on that.

Did any of us on here think for a moment that China would play ball on this? I didn't. I'm pretty sure the US knew that China wouldn't and it is other countries they are hoping will join in sanctions against Iran.

@Twiglets1 ,

‘Trump will concede on a lot of smaller things I think if he achieves his main goal - Iran to show to US satisfaction that they really are giving up their ambitions of becoming a nuclear power (for an agreed number of decades at least).’

I am not convinced that was actually his main goal at all! To be fair, some of his utterances are so confused, it is hard to know what he wants. But, he used some pretty large bunker busting munitions in the 12 day law and said that he had put the uranium beyond Iran’s reach for years.

And, unless the U.S have achieved something very secretly, which isn’t really Trump’s style, they have neither bombed Pickaxe Mountain (where, if there is any usable uranium and centrifuges, is where they are most likely to be) or sent special forces into Iran, backed by their undoubted air superiority, to secure or remove the uranium.

And, if you accept that, what did Trump really want? I suspect he wanted regime change and Iran to start shipping a lot of cheap oil to the west in time for the mid terms, to lower inflation, one of his manifesto promises.

But Netanyahu sold him a total pup on how easily Iran would crumble, including being too weak to close the strait after the air attack.

But, anyway, the nukes are now a possible win, at least on paper (whether Iran will allow inspectors in to all their sites freely is debatable) and open straits (which weren’t closed before) plus some concessions on the nukes, would probably be enough for Trump to declare victory and pull out

Even Qatar is looking a bit iffy
Qatar has been the outsider to Saudi dominated ME politics for some time, so it's understandable if they chose the path that best benefits them over some sort of obsequious falling in line with Trump's demands.

But everyone is waiting for the details. I can imagine a scenario where stupidly but logically, the US should end up sanctioning itself because of US entities trading with a sanctioned country but it won't happen. Economic outcast day - a movie title.

Quote " I can imagine a scenario where stupidly but logically, the US should end up sanctioning itself because of US entities trading with a sanctioned country but it won't happen. "

It happened with VZ oil. And instead of dropping the sanctions, for some reason Trump decided to wash move the money through Qatar.

I actually don't accept that and think that stopping Iran having the capacity to develop nuclear weapons was the US main goal - but Trump's not prepared to use US boots on the ground it seems. He also probably doesn't need to as in my opinion anyway, Iran will end up conceding on the nuclear issue.

I believe Trump also wanted to see regime change as a by product of the war. It would make the US look good if it happened, but they can claim victory without it.

Both sides will end up claiming victory but equally both sides will have made concessions and not achieved everything they wanted.

And basically the situation will return to where it was before Trump's war?

The US didn't change the regime in Venezuela.

No sign of elections happening either.

Memorandum of Understanding points 7 to 11 relate to nuclear weapons ~

Point 7: Sanctions to end
The US will terminate all economic sanctions against Iran, including those included in UN Security Council resolutions and those implemented unilaterally by the US.

Point 8: No nuclear weapons
Iran has agreed to not procure or buy a nuclear weapon, and both sides have agreed to deal with the enriched uranium Tehran already has.
The method to manage the material is unclear. The document notes that the mechanism "will be mutually agreed upon" in subsequent talks, but that, at a minimum, it will be "downblended" in place under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA.
Because the US has described the deal as performance-based, the sanctions relief specified in point 7 is tied to Iran complying with point 8.

Points 9 & 10: A 'status quo'
The following two parts of the agreement specify that the US and Iran agree to a "status quo" of its nuclear programme in the meantime, until the enriched uranium can be dealt with.
In practice, this means that the US will not impose new sanctions. In the meantime, it will issue waivers for the export of oil, petroleum products and other associated services, such as banking transactions and transportation.

Point 11: Frozen funds
The eleventh point of the document notes that the US "undertakes to make fully available frozen or restricted funds" once the MoU is signed and that procedures will be agreed upon during negotiations.
A US official told reporters on Wednesday that some assets will be released while post-MoU talks continue to reward Iran when it complies with aspects of the agreement, such as beginning to deal with its highly enriched uranium.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmqzr6p9mo

That's because the CIA paid the right people to look away when they kidnapped Maduro, it was strange how very little air defence was active during the capture.

Ms Rodríguez will learn the hard way that once you are no longer of use to the empire, your card expires awfully quickly.

After all the bloodshed caused in South America by CIA backed leaders like asset Manuel Noriega (who ironically was arrested after he had served his purpose as a violent drug trafficking dictator).

I wonder how much of that Venezuelan money will be returned (of course minus the fees that Trump will charge).

The primary reason a country would want a nuclear weapon is to deter it from being attacked. How do you convince them not to get one? By attacking them???

"A poll that I saw after the 12-day war, the narrative of the state has always been that we don't want nuclear weapons. And so before the war, those who supported having nuclear weapons and those who were opposed, I think they were close to each other in numbers. Maybe those who opposed nuclear weapons were, if I recall correctly, they were a majority. After the 12-day war, I saw a poll in Iran where it was more than reversed. A significant majority of ordinary Iranians disagree with the position taken by the state and believe we should have nuclear weapons." Professor Marandi in an interview with Glen Dieson.

"Yeah, well, about pushing countries towards nuclear weapons. I think it was always, well, a common criticism was that a dangerous incentive system was already in place. That is, for countries like North Korea or Pakistan who had secret nuclear programs, they're now safe today because, well, they have nuclear weapons. While countries like Libya and Iraq who abandoned their nuclear weapons program, they're destroyed. So again, if you look at the incentive system put in place, it's quite dangerous. You can't fight proliferation by at the same time making it quite such a good decision to acquire nuclear weapons. So this is quite dangerous. But as you said, the war against Iran now obviously has increased this logic even more. And at the end of the day, I think everyone loses. You want to get rid of the nuclear weapons, not spread them. So it's quite foolish bombing a country so it will not acquire a deterrent. I mean, you know, it could explain to a child why this is a horrible idea." Glen Dieson from the same interview.

This was never about nuclear weapons. It was always about destroying Iran for the sake of Israeli regional hegemony.

“This is all about the Israeli regime and the Zionist lobby. Iran is not a threat. Iran is not making a nuclear weapon, but they want this war and it’s not for America, it’s for the Israeli regime.” Joe Kent, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, in his resignation letter to Trump.

That's Joe Kent's opinion that "This is all about the Israeli regime and the Zionist lobby".

Here's another one - the Anti-Defamation League, a US antisemitism monitor, said in a statement that accusations in Kent's resignation letter "traffic in old-age antisemitic tropes".

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c33j3gxvgmro

Even if he is antisemitic, it does not make his statement untrue. Israel were so desperate to sabotage the peace talks they planned to assassinate the Iranian negotiation team. The irony is the US found out about the plan and it was the US who warned the Iranians to watch out because the Israelis had targeted their negotiation team for assassination.

If he is antisemitic he is unreliable in the way he interprets things.

I think it's ridiculous when people say that the US entered the war for Israel. Trump is one of the most self centred megalomaniacs you can imagine, he would have done it largely for his own reasons even if the US & Israel are strong allies.

Just to add like many others discussing this Joe Kent is not antisemitic, he is a casualty of the "criticism of Israel equals antisemitism" crowd, which is increasingly used to shutdown any critical discussion about Israel.

Having had access to the intelligence, he clearly stated that there was no strategic interest for America to attack Iran.

Or he's not antisemitic and as Director of the National Counter terrorism Center, he was a Senate confirmed, top tier intelligence official who sat at the absolute pinnacle of the U.S. national security apparatus and would know a hell of a lot more about what was going on than anyone else.

@Squeezingwildoranges ,

‘The primary reason a country would want a nuclear weapon is to deter it from being attacked. How do you convince them not to get one? By attacking them???’

I am not sure that is true in the case of Iran. Their biblical hatred of Israel may make them see it as their duty to destroy her.

This is where maybe my prejudice is showing, but I do think Iran wouldn’t be safe with nukes. In an ideal world no one would have humanity-destroying weapons but, in the real world, some countries do. That doesn’t mean that we should let all countries get them.

Is if good that Israel have nukes? Definitely not. But they haven’t been used in 50 years and Israel (at government level) have never threatened their use.

As long as Iran is a theocracy, they should never be allowed nukes.

I guess the counter question is what happens if religious zealots get to rule Israel (they are in the coalition now, but the junior members). There is no good answer to that, as it would be impossible to take their nukes away. But they are a physically tiny country, and can’t risk that kind of war, as well as becoming international pariahs.

@Twiglets1 ,

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-goals-iran-war-and-what-hes-saying-now-nuclear-missiles-regime-change/

This is a good summary about what Trump has said about the Iranian uranium at various times.

we will have to agree to disagree whether it really was his primary war aim. Everything that I have read suggests that Netanyahu suggested an opportunistic short war based on a decapitation strike when all the high ranking Iranians were together.

I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons but, as Professor Marandi said, even if Iran had no intention of acquiring them in the past, they will certainly be considering it now. Whatever we think of the Iranians, I don't believe they are idiots. Using nuclear weapons means destruction for everyone.

Their hatred of Israel is not biblical. Why on earth would you think that. It is based purely on Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

Israel has never threatened their use?? Name me one other country that has nuclear weapons and made a declaration such as the Samson option. I have no doubt in my mind that if the US pulls out of this war, Katz will implement Operation Blue and White and although not publicly expressed yet, it involves the use of nuclear weapons.

They can afford that kind of war if there is no risk of a retaliation.

These sanctions don’t look like they are going to work. Another country has said they are not legal, and they won’t abide.

Pakistan says it does not consider itself bound by US sanctions on Iran.
Addressing reporters in Islamabad on Thursday, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Taher Andarab said Pakistan does not believe Washington’s unilateral sanctions on Tehran adhere to international law and that issues should be resolved through dialogue.

Now what Donny?

We've discussed this topic before on this thread and the point was made by several that the best way of protecting yourself from a nuclear attack was to have a nuclear weapon yourself. Otherwise you're bringing a knife to a gun fight.
After being surprise attacked not once, but twice, during negotiations, it's understandable if Iran pursues acquiring a nuclear weapon by subterfuge in the long run.
After all if Israel has/doesn't have nuclear capability, then Iran can adopt a similar position.